Burning 1000 calories at the gym?
Options
Replies
-
TimothyFish wrote: »If you are burning 1000 calories per day, then yes, you would be on track for 2 lbs per week. But if you are basing that number off of the machines, you'll be disappointed. At your weight, burning 1000 calories is equivalent to riding a bicycle 50 miles (80km).
Nooooooo.... You do not burn 200 calories per hour of moderate exercise. For me, a 50 mile bike ride would take a solid 4-5 hours (yes, I'm slow. I'm out of shape, but I need to push myself pretty hard ot maintain a decent speed on the bike).
I find that, in general, I burn about 400-700 calories per hour on my bike, depending on how hard I'm pushing myself. To burn 1000 calories, I need to ride for 2 hours, or about 20-30 miles. Casual observations find that this is a pretty average burn for most cyclists. 2 hours = about 1000 calories. Distance covered is dependent on how hard the rider rides and how fit the individual is.0 -
My diet is good I'm on 1200 a day.
I'm currently on the sick so that's why I think it's possible to do that much or I could just become a couch potato0 -
bethany_h_xx wrote: »My diet is good I'm on 1200 a day.
I'm currently on the sick so that's why I think it's possible to do that much or I could just become a couch potato
I hope that's 1200 calories NET. In other words, if you do nothing all day, you eat 1200 calories. If you burn 1000 calories in the gym, you eat 2200 calories.
If you eat 1200 calories and burn 1000 calories, you're setting yourself up for a world of hurt.0 -
Eat to perform.0
-
bethany_h_xx wrote: »My diet is good I'm on 1200 a day.
I'm currently on the sick so that's why I think it's possible to do that much or I could just become a couch potato
You're not well enough to work but you're well enough to spend 2 hours at high intensity in a gym?
How does that work?0 -
bethany_h_xx wrote: »My diet is good I'm on 1200 a day.
I'm currently on the sick so that's why I think it's possible to do that much or I could just become a couch potato
Your body burns more than 1200 calories just living.
What makes you think that two pounds per week is the right rate of loss for you?
How much do you plan on eating to support 1000 calorie burns at the gym on top of what your body burns just living?
0 -
I estimate that I burned about 1,000 Calories at the gym yesterday. But I'm 255 lbs. and a former endurance athlete. I have an additional 1,000 Calorie deficit in my diet that I have been hitting every day for the last five months.
But what did I do when I got home? Right to the couch. So even though I may have truly burnt those calories, my NEAT decreased because I didn't have enough energy to do my normal evening activities. That is something that can easily be overlooked.
I generally target 600-800 Calories in my workouts which leaves me enough energy for the rest of the day.0 -
chivalryder wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »If you are burning 1000 calories per day, then yes, you would be on track for 2 lbs per week. But if you are basing that number off of the machines, you'll be disappointed. At your weight, burning 1000 calories is equivalent to riding a bicycle 50 miles (80km).
Nooooooo.... You do not burn 200 calories per hour of moderate exercise. For me, a 50 mile bike ride would take a solid 4-5 hours (yes, I'm slow. I'm out of shape, but I need to push myself pretty hard ot maintain a decent speed on the bike).
I find that, in general, I burn about 400-700 calories per hour on my bike, depending on how hard I'm pushing myself. To burn 1000 calories, I need to ride for 2 hours, or about 20-30 miles. Casual observations find that this is a pretty average burn for most cyclists. 2 hours = about 1000 calories. Distance covered is dependent on how hard the rider rides and how fit the individual is.
@chivalryder, I'm not saying you're wrong, but I am curious what method you use to verify that you are burning 700 calories per hour. According to my HRM and MFP and the calculator on Bicycling.com, I burn over 1300 calories on my regular 21 mile ride. But according to bikecalculator.com and an Excel spreadsheet that does a calculation based on the physics of moving a body a distance on a bicycle, it is more like 500. Given the two very different estimations, I compared my weight loss with expected results and found that my weight loss is more consistent with 500 calorie burns than it is with 1300 calorie burns. So, either I'm burning only 500 or I'm eating 800 calories per day more than I'm logging. Some people will say that is possible, since I don't weigh my food, but it is highly unlikely, since I've been losing weight consistently, even when I don't exercise.
0 -
I burnt around 9000 calories doing a 91km walk the other weekend. Took me 22 hrs though. 6972 over 40.69 miles and 3897 over 18.52 miles.0
-
-
In order for me to burn 1000 calories, I have to run about 15 miles, which takes me between two and a half and three hours. I could never do that on a daily basis, and I couldn't do on only 1200 calories. The day before a long-run (which for me is 10+ miles) I eat at maintenance, as I struggle with my energy levels on a deficit.0
-
TimothyFish wrote: »chivalryder wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »If you are burning 1000 calories per day, then yes, you would be on track for 2 lbs per week. But if you are basing that number off of the machines, you'll be disappointed. At your weight, burning 1000 calories is equivalent to riding a bicycle 50 miles (80km).
Nooooooo.... You do not burn 200 calories per hour of moderate exercise. For me, a 50 mile bike ride would take a solid 4-5 hours (yes, I'm slow. I'm out of shape, but I need to push myself pretty hard ot maintain a decent speed on the bike).
I find that, in general, I burn about 400-700 calories per hour on my bike, depending on how hard I'm pushing myself. To burn 1000 calories, I need to ride for 2 hours, or about 20-30 miles. Casual observations find that this is a pretty average burn for most cyclists. 2 hours = about 1000 calories. Distance covered is dependent on how hard the rider rides and how fit the individual is.
@chivalryder, I'm not saying you're wrong, but I am curious what method you use to verify that you are burning 700 calories per hour. According to my HRM and MFP and the calculator on Bicycling.com, I burn over 1300 calories on my regular 21 mile ride. But according to bikecalculator.com and an Excel spreadsheet that does a calculation based on the physics of moving a body a distance on a bicycle, it is more like 500. Given the two very different estimations, I compared my weight loss with expected results and found that my weight loss is more consistent with 500 calorie burns than it is with 1300 calorie burns. So, either I'm burning only 500 or I'm eating 800 calories per day more than I'm logging. Some people will say that is possible, since I don't weigh my food, but it is highly unlikely, since I've been losing weight consistently, even when I don't exercise.
I use an HRM where I maintain my statistics (weight, resting heart rate and VO2 Max) regularly.
Back in the day when I was very active, I had a fairly consistent 500 calorie/hour burn and these days, though I severely lack the fitness, my VO2 Max is lower, my resting HR is higher, and my weight is a lot higher, my burns are still usually around 500 calories/hour. I'm a hell of a lot slower, but I'm exerting myself just as much. Both times, I've been riding at a fairly steady state in the aerobic heart rate zone with few intervals. The days I did intervals or generally pushed harder (yay, hills) my calorie burns were higher for obvious reasons.
I don't use my HRM to track calorie burn though. I use it for zone training. I use the TDEE method and trial and error to ensure I'm eating the right amount.
The problem with spreadsheet calculators and such is that they don't really take into account variables such as weather, constant changes in elevation, wind, traffic, etc., etc.. I could never trust such a thing to give me a calorie burn that is remotely accurate.
Disclaimer: My opinions are based off of personal experience and from the observations of fellow cyclists on MFP. If you disagree with it, that's fine, but you'll need to show me scientific evidence from a cyclist hooked up to a machine that measures caloric expenditure to justify that your argument is more valid to me than my own. Without such precise machinery, caloric expenditure will always be a rough estimate. Hence why I use TDEE.0 -
chivalryder wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »chivalryder wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »If you are burning 1000 calories per day, then yes, you would be on track for 2 lbs per week. But if you are basing that number off of the machines, you'll be disappointed. At your weight, burning 1000 calories is equivalent to riding a bicycle 50 miles (80km).
Nooooooo.... You do not burn 200 calories per hour of moderate exercise. For me, a 50 mile bike ride would take a solid 4-5 hours (yes, I'm slow. I'm out of shape, but I need to push myself pretty hard ot maintain a decent speed on the bike).
I find that, in general, I burn about 400-700 calories per hour on my bike, depending on how hard I'm pushing myself. To burn 1000 calories, I need to ride for 2 hours, or about 20-30 miles. Casual observations find that this is a pretty average burn for most cyclists. 2 hours = about 1000 calories. Distance covered is dependent on how hard the rider rides and how fit the individual is.
@chivalryder, I'm not saying you're wrong, but I am curious what method you use to verify that you are burning 700 calories per hour. According to my HRM and MFP and the calculator on Bicycling.com, I burn over 1300 calories on my regular 21 mile ride. But according to bikecalculator.com and an Excel spreadsheet that does a calculation based on the physics of moving a body a distance on a bicycle, it is more like 500. Given the two very different estimations, I compared my weight loss with expected results and found that my weight loss is more consistent with 500 calorie burns than it is with 1300 calorie burns. So, either I'm burning only 500 or I'm eating 800 calories per day more than I'm logging. Some people will say that is possible, since I don't weigh my food, but it is highly unlikely, since I've been losing weight consistently, even when I don't exercise.
I use an HRM where I maintain my statistics (weight, resting heart rate and VO2 Max) regularly.
Back in the day when I was very active, I had a fairly consistent 500 calorie/hour burn and these days, though I severely lack the fitness, my VO2 Max is lower, my resting HR is higher, and my weight is a lot higher, my burns are still usually around 500 calories/hour. I'm a hell of a lot slower, but I'm exerting myself just as much. Both times, I've been riding at a fairly steady state in the aerobic heart rate zone with few intervals. The days I did intervals or generally pushed harder (yay, hills) my calorie burns were higher for obvious reasons.
I don't use my HRM to track calorie burn though. I use it for zone training. I use the TDEE method and trial and error to ensure I'm eating the right amount.
The problem with spreadsheet calculators and such is that they don't really take into account variables such as weather, constant changes in elevation, wind, traffic, etc., etc.. I could never trust such a thing to give me a calorie burn that is remotely accurate.
Disclaimer: My opinions are based off of personal experience and from the observations of fellow cyclists on MFP. If you disagree with it, that's fine, but you'll need to show me scientific evidence from a cyclist hooked up to a machine that measures caloric expenditure to justify that your argument is more valid to me than my own. Without such precise machinery, caloric expenditure will always be a rough estimate. Hence why I use TDEE.
That's part of the problem. I see lots of people who say, "I'm burning this much" or "MFP is overestimating", but I haven't found anyone who has based that on the results they get by hooking people up to a machine and comparing their actual calorie burn to estimate. I don't have access to such a machine, so I can't do it. What I do have is a bathroom scale and the knowledge that a pound of fat has 3500 calories. With that information, I can find my calorie deficit and as long as I have a reasonable idea of how much I am eating, then I can calculate how many calories I am burning.0 -
It's entirely possible to burn 1000 calories per day in the gym, I do it just about every time I go (running about 8-10 miles, averaging 8 minutes per mile). My weight loss numbers back up this calorie burn calculation. My concern would be if you're eating 1200 calories and burning off 1000. This is not sustainable, and will leave you exhausted, potentially injured, and likely to give up.0
-
What is your weight loss rate? And how many calories do you eat?RunsUponATime wrote: »It's entirely possible to burn 1000 calories per day in the gym, I do it just about every time I go (running about 8-10 miles, averaging 8 minutes per mile). My weight loss numbers back up this calorie burn calculation. My concern would be if you're eating 1200 calories and burning off 1000. This is not sustainable, and will leave you exhausted, potentially injured, and likely to give up.
0 -
Why are people saying high intensity? Its perfectly possible to do 1000 calorie burns if you pace yourself and have time. Decreasing the intensity and taking a rest makes it much more achievable if thats what a person wnated to do. Heavier people burn at a significantly faster rate. Third time in recent months this issue has come up and it always full of machines are inaccurate, its dangerous, impossible etc.
Its possible and not that hard tbh, the more pertinent questions for those with the time or stamina to do it, would be why and to make sure you took rest days for your body to recover. Its easier to control your consumption than go for direct calorie burns, but they can be useful .0 -
RunsUponATime wrote: »It's entirely possible to burn 1000 calories per day in the gym, I do it just about every time I go (running about 8-10 miles, averaging 8 minutes per mile). My weight loss numbers back up this calorie burn calculation. My concern would be if you're eating 1200 calories and burning off 1000. This is not sustainable, and will leave you exhausted, potentially injured, and likely to give up.
No one is saying it's impossible to burn 1000 calories in the gym. What everyone is saying is that it takes more time than what most people believe it will take.
On top of that, it's not a good idea to burn 1000 calories from exercise every single day, especially as a beginner.
However, it's quite obvious the OP is completely ignoring all of the good advice that is being given in this thread and is focusing on the posts that seem to follow along her original idea of eating nothing and burning all of her calories away every single day.
Oh well, in the long term it will be her downfall. Ignorance often leads to that.0 -
I thought OP looked familiar.
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10160666/1000-calorie-diet-for-2lb-loss/p10
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.9K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 399 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 981 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions